#Penetrative pricing Offline

Even Amazon, with all its resources, is not dominant in the relevant market, as held by CCI in Re: Lifestyle Equities C.V.

#Penetrative pricing Offline

Secondly, such an approach ignores the anti-competitive effect the predatory pricing of Shopee has on small sellers, in particular, the offline retailers who, due to economic costs, are not in a position to provide deep discounting. Firstly, in the case of the platform economy, where there exist enterprises such as Amazon, Flipkart, Myntra and Nykaa,, there can be no sole dominance of any one enterprise. In the present case, the stance adopted by CCI is problematic in two aspects. The CCI dismissed the complaint in terms of section 26(2) of the Act, since Shopee does not form a dominant entity, which is a prerequisite as laid down in section 4(2), and therefore, no prima facie opinion can be formed.

The existing competition is being driven out.

After the market rises again, the enterprise plans to recover the losses significantly or.

The sole purpose is to drive out the competition from the market.

The prices set by enterprises are below the cost price.

TECPRO Systems Ltd., laid down four factors to determine the predatory pricing policy: The CCI, in Transparent Energy Systems (P) Ltd.

The aim of indulging in predatory pricing is to obtain a sufficient hold in the market by keeping the prices below cost and eliminating competitors from the market. The practice of indulging in predatory pricing is expressly stated to be anti-competitive in terms of section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. 9/-.” The Informant alleged this practice adopted by Shopee amounts to predatory pricing and “…is driving small players out of the marketplace and thus amounts to unfair trade practice.”. It was alleged that Shopee offers deep discounts on various products and sells them below the cost price, and “ that some of the products, such as Kurtis, mugs, wallets, etc., are sold at Rs. Vaibhav Mishra ( ‘Informant’) under section 19(l)(a) of the Act alleging contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Act by Sppin India Pvt. The Information in the present case has been filed by Mr. In this post, the authors will highlight the loopholes in the present scheme of predatory pricing and evaluate the impact of predatory pricing in the offline market and will lay down new factors under section 19(4) of the Act, which should be considered to establish dominance under section 4 of the Act.Īnalysis of Judgement and Proof of Dominance The CCI has missed an opportunity to evaluate the existing predatory pricing scheme, which has become redundant in the current market sphere. The CCI, while dismissing the complaint, held that though Shopee was involved in the practice of predatory pricing, it is not liable to be fined under section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 ( ‘Act’) since it does not hold dominance in the online market or platform economy. Ltd.( ‘Shopee case’), has dismissed the allegation regarding the exercise of predatory pricing carried out by ‘Shopee’, an online marketplace. The Competition Commission of India ( ‘CCI’) in the recent case of In Re: Vaibhav Mishra v.